Council wants this both ways

I RECENTLY received a rather lovely glossy brochure entitled The Eastbourne Plan - a summary brochure.

This asks residents to comment on the Proposed Core Strategy 2006-2027 of the Councils vision for Eastbourne.

Seeking residents views is laudable until you look a little deeper and see that the document is misleading in the way it asks the questions and is aimed at getting the answers the Council require.

Sovereign Harbour area (Area 14 map ‘Community Led Neighbourhoods’) does not mention the proposed 150 additional houses planned.

On other areas additional housing is identified.

What is mentioned is ‘delivery of community infrastructure, new employment development, and provision of usable open space’.

If you support the council statement then you unknowingly agree to the additional housing resulting in a ‘change of land us’ therefore allowing continued residential development across the whole area.

Previous planning control on the Harbour makes this a fact, not speculation.

Twenty years ago, the original planning of the Harbour was for 2,500 houses.

Current housing built stands at approximately 3,550, an increase of over a thousand and now a further 150 are planned on the small areas of land left. When will this stop?

There are still none of the originally promised community facilities.

Nowhere for children to play or people to meet.

Nowhere for scouts, guides, WI, a luncheon club and more.

The building of the doctor’s surgery has only just commenced.

The funding for this has been entirely private - not a penny has come from either the council or the developers.

The council has now advised the residents that they cannot enforce provision of the social amenities, even if the additional housing planned takes place.

Recent changes in zoning has joined together the Kingsmere Estate and the harbour, implying that the community facilities on Kingsmere are available to residents of the Harbour, thus reducing the need for facilities on the Harbour.

There is no physical way of getting from the Harbour on to Kingsmere without driving and children cannot even access the play areas.

Originally, one of the reasons the harbour area was built was to encourage walking and cycling and reduce driving.

Latterly, the council suggested that a polling station should be located in the Harbour as access to the nearest one located on Kingsmere was so difficult.

It seems to me that the council want this both ways.

Elaine Levy

Anguilla Close